Fujifilm announces XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS wideangle zoom

Fujifilm has announced the XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS, a premium ultra-wideangle zoom lens for the company's X system mirrorless cameras. It offers an angle of view equivalent to 15-36mm on full frame, and incorporates optical image stabilisation to reduce blur at slow shutter speeds when shooting hand-held. It also has an aperture control ring on the barrel, and is compatible with the company's Lens Modulation Optimizer function that promises more detailed out-of-camera JPEG images when shooting at small apertures. It'll be available from March 2014 for $999.95 / £849.99.

Fujifilm launches the Fujinon XF10-24mmF4 R OIS – an ultra wide to standard zoom lens with an F4.0 aperture throughout

The new Fujinon XF lens is a 2.4x zoom lens – equivalent to 15-36mm in 35mm format. Its ultra wide to standard focal length capabilities make it the perfect choice for shooting dynamic, high impact landscapes images with maximum detail from the foreground to the far distance. It also comes into its own when shooting interiors, making small rooms look more impressive, while the maximum F4.0 aperture that is available throughout the zoom range, enables handheld shooting even in low light conditions.

Key features on the Fujinon XF10-24mm lens

Newly designed optical system with 4 high-precision aspherical lenses and 3 extra low dispersion glass lenses which maximize performance of the X-Trans sensor.

A powerful Optical Image Stabilisation function which boosts the ability to work handheld when shooting in low light.

Ghosting is minimized by Fujifilm’s unique HT-EBC* multi-layer coating that is applied to all sides of Fujinon lenses.

An additional newly developed coating has been added to the reverse side of the front lens in the XF10-24 composition to further reduce the ghosting that typically occurs when using deep concave lenses.

Enhanced resolving power at all apertures when used in-conjunction with an X-series camera** that incorporates a Lens Modulation Optimizer (LMO) function.

Comments

This lens is heavier than the X-E1 so I hope the center of mass of the lens is toward the rear element otherwise things just become awkward. I have been waiting for this to be released and got a 14mm to tide me over to the release. This is the make or break lens for any system and myself. If it is terrible I will probably dump my X-E1 and lenses and put my eggs into my FF system (happy to dump the FF system if this lens rocks). I probably would need to get something like an X100s if this lens is horrible. Though I could stick with just the 14mm + other primes. I have my fingers crossed.

Hey, this is an pretty nice lens.But I would like to see more pancake lenses to acomplish compact mirorless bodies. They could be slower, but should be optically and mechanically flawless and really compact. And then I will be in. M43 got too small sensor for me.

well if optically its a solid performer(yet to be seen). I would prefer buying this over 4 primes, doesn't matter the brightness and size. This focal length range can be best served with a flexible zoom. A good OSS/IS/VR, resolution, low vigg CA and distortion (don't need to be perfect) .. that's all you need .. post processing is very easy these days

also m43 got too small for you? well when it was not that small and then how small is not small for you :))

I ment that there could be an option of having really compact pancake lenses eg 24,35,40,50mm. Because main adevantage of mirrorless over dslrs should be in compact size. And zoom lenses and large aperture lenses doesnt accomplish that. Just to have combo of large sensor camera with lenses which fit into the pocket.But you right, I am too choosy, there are already some good solutions.

Uh, sorry mister expert, the 27/2.8 pancake is one of the sharpest lenses.

And i agree with povetron, some more compact lenses would be nice, but it doesn't have to be really completely 'pancake' though, that only really benefits the X-A1 or X-M1 anyway. The 27 is almost too small on the X-E2. And doesn't have the aperture ring to complement the shutter dial on the body !

Depends if you account for the field curvature, most tests don't. That's the main problem with brick wall tests, the reason people should be looking at PICTURES for a change.

The performance is golden from edge to edge, Photozone shows the difference if you must have numbers. Don't forget it's smaller than Panasonics 20/1.7, almost the size of Panasonics 14mm now that is small considering its apsc, which i believe was the point of this conversation ..

Missing the point much? You claim pancakes incapable of high quality. I am showing you the problem lies not with pancake but the fact that people like you expect it to be small, have a fast aperture anyway, and still only cost a penny, those things do not mix. Fuji here shows how it can be done, and yes that comes at a price.

I you don't like it, don't like it, but stop with these useless and incorrect claims only to defend your wrongs with lame excuses later.

27mm fuji comes in a cheap double-kit lens with fuji X-M1 with their new zoom kit 16-50mm and I agree its slow and not the best fuji lens, but luckily it is cheap, does its job and compact. I only wish if its bundled with xe-2 dual kit too.

I'll bet this lens is great, but I'll need more than a photo and a press release to be sure. I can't even state that I have compared it to the Canon 11-22 and found the Fuji is superior, although some fans have already made that determination. If only DPR could test lenses this quickly!

I'm enjoying everything about the X-Series. With this lens, my bag will be largely complete: 10-24/15-36mm zoom with stabilization, 23/35mm prime which lives on the XE2, and 55-200/84-305mm zoom with stabilization.

Fuji seems to be on a tear with its new lenses! I've been shooting Nikon DX for 6 years, the last 3 with growing frustration about Nikon's apparent halt to building out its DX lens lineup. I've been thinking about jumping the fence to the Fuji X-mount; this lens makes the choice more compelling. But, oh, the price! The Sigma 10-20 I shoot on my Nikon cost less than half the price.

In equivalent terms, the Nikon 16-35/4 is also a full stop faster as it covers a full frame sensor. If you don't like the size of the faster lens that's fine, but don't act like you are getting something equivalent but with less size going with Fuji.

isn't it easier? none of the two is any stop faster .. fast is for shutter speed .. not physical opening size of aperture!! at equal exposure, both of these lenses including the one on 4/3 or 1" with f/4 will be equally fast (takes same time)

"at equal exposure, both of these lenses including the one on 4/3 or 1" with f/4 will be equally fast" Does this even mean anything? At equal exposure the image from a FF sensor will always have less noise than APS-C, which is what is called as the one stop advantage - as the noise performance of FF sensors is typically one stop better than APS-C as the same exposure.

So, yes, the continuing equivalence talk.Yes the FF will have less DOF and will be a stop better in noise for the same aperture and shutter speed.But with a super wide angle used at base ISO that difference will be a very happy trade for many.Plus for the equivalent DOF (if that's what you are after) the APS-C will be one f-stop wider, thus enabling a lower ISO (if not already at base ISO) for the same shutter speed.There are no clear winners in every situation, but this lens is much smaller and lighter than the FX "equivalent" taken on whole.

I am sorry to say, but neither price nor weight are surprising for this lens (since than optical performance and mechanical quality are there). If you want small and compact get a couple of primes or move to smaller sensor (price will most probably not change though).

Fuji makes great stuff, but i'm thinking they need to differentiate themselves a little more from Nikon and Canon. Big heavy lenses are the bread of butter of the big two. A slightly more sensitive sensor is not enough in my book. They should compete with M43 not with FF and APSC. Find a niche and preferably not in the wheelhouse of the bully on the block. Otherwise damn yourself to getting the scraps.

Oh I forgot about the huge market share and profits Fuji has developed with it's mirrorless cameras. It's substantially less than M43 let alone Canon or Nikon. Lets create a camera that nullifies half the advantages mirroless provides and make lenses the size of FF telephoto zooms. Being a 'cult' camera only works if the masses see it as such, if they see it as more of the same, it's an extinct camera line and you sir sound as if your a camera paleontoligst

A big APSC sensor needs lots of glass either way to get the kind of high-end performance people are expecting. That's just how it is. Mirrorless doesn't mean it has to be small by definition, just no bigger or heavier than it needs to be altogether. It's not just the kind of mirrorless that you'd take along when the FF camera stays home, it's supposed to replace all of it, it's the real deal. And believe me i'd rather carry around a complete 3-lens 1-camera kit of this stuff than even the smallest DSLR equivalent (or the biggest and baddest for that matter).

I agree with you in a way .. this won't look awesome sitting over a small mirrorless camera. But think it another way .. I would like to have a mirrorless fuji x-e2 with a small, fast and thin prime, lets say the one 28mm ff equivalent all the time. but when I need a wider or slightly narrower coverage, I don't have to buy and carry another heavy fullframe camera.

i know dude .. and this is one of the main reason why am not adopting sony .. LENSES!!! nex is getting better though

the big reason behind adopting new standards is they are trying to find their stronghold and doing their every effort to win its grounds .. not like Canikon who already got stablished client base and getting lazy everyday, bragging on their existing lense catalog!!

I like innovation and new ideas and for those reasons, respect Sony and Fuji! Even though I am going to keep my m43 gear and probably will get into nikon fullframe as second bigger body one day!!

Sony has always brought some innovative design concepts to market. But when it comes to interchangeable camera systems- lenses are going to be at the heart of any system. And so far Sony hasn't been paying much attention to that. Lets see if 2-3 years down the line they offer lenses like m43 or Fuji-X. Until then I am going to stay away from Sony. I am hoping the success of A7/7r motivates Canon and Nikon to design and release their own FF mirrorless cameras. In past both these manufacturers had rangefinders in their catalogues so making small FF lenses shouldn't be a big problem for either of the two.

Even if CaNikon will make a small FF mirrorless, it will not be as easy to compete against Sony. Because small FF mirrorless will need new lenses!! Sony will progress on that grounds. Plus CZ will always be there for Sony.

Naveed do you know why people buy and use ND filters?Lets say you have 3 stops ND filter and you can take a shot with 2 sec f22 iso 200 if you had iso 100 your f stop would be 16 which means better image quality (or you could take a photo with 4 s which means a lot for day light long exposure photography)and even if u had iso 50 you wud be more free to chose those values.And sometimes you want to take a shot with f1.8 but your max shutter speed is 1/4000 for fuji x pro1 and you will need to use an ND filter to make this shot (which drops the image quality which is important especially if it s a portrait shot) I have never needed to take a shot at ISO 3200 or more but yes I needed smaller ISO values.BTW I know some cameras have some creative filters ND included which is really good but still if you had smaller ISO values that ND filter feature would be more useful with an extra 1 or 2 stops ISO advantage.

Xentinus .. thanks a lot dude for a detailed response, I really appreciate your kind efforts .. though, trust me, I know very well about ND, Polariser, Gradient fileters etc and know the impact of diffraction on different camera formats.

ND filter is deffinately a great tool to use for gaining longer exposure. But please give it to gilliath who is asking ISO100 to slow his exposure, he needs exactly an ND filter, it will help him much more!!

Every new Fujifilm lens makes my Nikon DX system look more and more like a dead end. No significant new DX lenses since the 16-85, and not a single wide prime without going to an enormous heavy lens that needlessly covers the full frame format. With full frame 2x or more the weight, bulk and price, Fujifilm is looking like the way to go for everything but long telephoto and f/2.8 zooms. Bringing out that 58mm and mapping out a path to a 300mm f/4 with 1.4 extender for birding would absolutely seal the deal. A battery pack for extended operation when needed (or a new top-end camera with a bigger basic battery and a bit more of a grip) would neutralize another DSLR advantage.

Not really sure what the issue is here. Nikon already has a full line up of lenses for DX. In addition to that, third parties provide even more to choose from. And let's not forget the affordable prices either. You can cover the entire focal range for less that the price of this fuji lens. You have the Tokina 12-24 f4, Nikkor 35mm f1.8G, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Nikkor 24-85 f3.5-4.5 VR, nikkor 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR. And don't forget the D lenses like the great 50mm f1.4D. These are just a few of the great choices that can be had FOR LESS THAN $350 EACH, used market.

I am very, very impressed with Fuji. They seem to relentlessly plug away, continually improving their camera bodies ( firmware upgrades make a freshly update XP-1 almost a new camera compared to the original ) and they just keep on increasing the lens range.

Very impressive. And I must say the only weaknesses, around AF in the main, are also much improved too.

The web is full of some excellent work being done by bloggers and pros using Fuji now. People like Mike Kobal.

It looks like the aperture control ring is similar to the one on the other zoom lenses - NO MARKINGS? I understand the reasoning for this on the other lenses that have a variable largest aperture through the zoom range, but why leave the markings off on this lens with a constant f4?

I'm sure it is just an electronic control ring (same as on the other Fuji lenses, including the primes that are marked. I'm just baffled as to why they don't add the marks on the zooms, and particularly on this lens with a constant aperture. It's nice to be able to set the aperture before bringing the camera up to your eye or even turning it on.

That said, I'm still planning on buying this lens. It looks very nice.

An UWA was one of the missing lenses that meant I went with Sony a year ago, so nice that they're finally filling that gap. Would be interesting to see how it compares come next March, as I find the Sony 10-18/4.0 good at F5.6 and excellent at F8.0+. From the spec sheet I can see this lens is close to double the weight (410g vs 225g), and significantly more expensive - but that will matter little if it's genuinely sharper wide open.

I keep on waiting and waiting for my 56mm lens, what a frustration.When i bought my X-Pro 1 a year ago, it was already in the pipeline,so they said.Or will the new X-Pro 2 be a full frame camera and the 56mm comesout as a full frame lens ?

If light weight is important, micro 4/3 is still the best choice. Get the Lumix GM1 with the new 12-32mm f3.5-5.6, a 20mm f/1.7 and the new Lumix 45-150mm f/4.0-5.6. This combo would cover almost any required focal length and its as light as a feather. The Lumix 20mm f1.7 would cover most low light situation.

Although the Fuji mirrorless cameras are quite good the lenses are as big as most DSLR lenses. Thus, the attraction is negated.

This looks like a very nice lens, especially if the quality is there, and it probably will be there.

Fuji was smart to move to the high end of the MILC market by offering better lenses and bodies, and ceding the low end to Samsung and Sony. This is the niche they will probably own in the future, especially if they keep creating top quality lenses.

Size is only "not that much different" because length of Pana 7-14 includes integrated hood. Mount a hood on the Fuji 10-24 and then compare. And 110g of weight difference is also with hood vs without - mount a hood and it is even more (but even 110g is quite the difference - and 14mm-eq is wider).

@ abortabort: hy, i im a canon user, and got the 10-22 a few months ago, for the first time in my life i wanted to exchange it: the corners at 10mm were really bad with the 70D!!! only at 10mm but that is the focal for wich i bought it!!! (i had the 15-85 IS before!). I went to the shop and was lucky enough that a friend there helped me tested against another sample just arrived from japan(tripod and all, naturally!) there was a very tiny diference... and mine was better actually! I supose that the tests in Photozone.de etc were in lesser demanding sensors! :(

@ Higuel: do you realize you are talking about the 10-22 EF-S (for DLSR), and not about the 11-22 for EF-M (for mirrorless)? Very different lenses! The 11-22 EF-M seems to be an excellent lens for the money, difficult to beat for the competition.

If the only metric left by which customers choose their products is price, expect lots of plastic crap to hit the shelves, and by and by, deteriorating quality.

I welcome a Fuji that could focus on a market they want to capture and tweak until they have it. This do all and be all to everyone strategy will only dilute their brand. Focus on the mid-high end of the mirror less market and get rid of the toenail and puppy dog shooters.

F4 for all the focal lenghts - so why no aperture numbers/markings on the lens? Can't see them on the pictures anyway.

I love my XF14mm, so I will not buy the 10-24mm I guess. On my Canon 7D with 10-22mm I discovered that my widest shots over the last years, that I really liked, were around 12-13mm, so I decided to buy the 14mm for my X-Pro1 earlier this autumn. No need for 10mm... yet.. :D

If there was ever a company capable of making hasselblad lenses under the hasselblad name, it was fujifilm. And here we have it: More recent Fujinon lenses than Hasselblad for a body priced from $400 if you put a bit of effort into your search, rather than $40,000 for the cheapest Hassy equivalent.Proof: http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fujinon/avatar/prweb3412524.htm

Looks like a useful choice for travel landscape lens, and not sure that fast but heavy or big zoom factors but flawed optically, are the right concept for the fuji X cameras, what it needs to be is sharp and linear across the envelope.

What is the point in a heavier f/2.8 lens that needs to go to 5.6-8 for sharpness, when you can have a lighter and cheaper f/4 and up the ISO? We are no longer in the early days when ISO 3200 was a noisefest in digicams.

I agree, if only because IS adds weight and size. Careful landscape and architecture shooters will be on tripods anyway. Low light... I can fathom that being important, but not really. IS is becoming rather common and certain customers expect it. I have a feeling that many of those customers would benefit from boning up on stabler shooting techniques.

The first is what, the very reasons tripods even exist? Anyone who *plans* on shooting interiors without a tripod isn't being very professional, as you would want to use at least F11 anyway, so it's gotta be one awesome crib if there's enough light to do that handheld at base iso, even with OIS. Of course, you can't plan everything and you don't have to be professional if you don't want to.

there are some tricks to shoot interiors without a tripod, like pressing the camera against a wall, but often slow shutter is not enough for interior that a tripod is more needed for multiple shots (focus stacking, HDR, stitching).

I often shoot interiors without a tripod. For one, some buildings (museums, churches) have rules barring tripods. Second, even when tripods are allowed they're difficult to use in crowded environments. Third, if I'm traveling all day on foot, carrying a tripod is a difficult choice. It means carrying a backpack versus perhaps just carrying a small camera with single lens slung over a shoulder.

All mainstream companies make good lenses and bad lenses. And they're all full of compromises whether that is built to a price point or with certain design objectives (e.g. small size).And some lens design is outsourced or uses well known optical formulae that have existed for many years.So your sweeping statement that Fuji makes better lenses is simply not true. In this case the Fuji lens may have been designed to be higher quality (at a higher cost and possibly larger size) than the Sony lens but all camera manufacturer's could probably produce or outsource an equivalent if they wanted to.I think Sigma have shown that there are no magic ingredients.

Not true are you kidding? You can blame or thank who-ever you want, for all i care it was Tamron who designed them (it was not). The fact is that there is only one questionable performer in the XF lens line-up so far out of 10, or 11 if this one turns out to deliver, or 13 including Zeiss Touit. They had exactly 0 only two years ago!! Obviously they ARE designed that way, and no surprise that comes at a cost. Comparing this with probably the worst superwide zoom ever make no sense whatsoever.

Sony E 10-18 is pretty good, certainly not "the worst superwide ever made". And making determination about this lens before any tests is rich. 2.4x range is pretty ambitious for a UWA, ends of the range might not be so good.

M Jesper, I know that the Fujis are good lenses. I personally am very interested in the X system and may in the future run one alongside my m43 stuff.Fuji has targeted a specific type of photographer with the X system who will be very critical of poor lenses and will happily buy expensive lenses.For the Nex system with a large number of more casual users using Nex3 or Nex5 it may have made more sense for Sony to produce a cheaper and smaller lens at the expense of optical quality.The point I was making is that the lenses are targeted at certain segments of the market and any major camera company **could** produce an equivalent of this lens (even if by outsourcing) but it may not be commercially viable (or less profitable) to do so.

That IS the point. Fuji XF is for those who seek more high-end equipment without the weight of a DSLR. And it's working, people love it, certainly not everybody but isn't that always the case with specialized equipment. Mainstream is not the only way to success you know. caver3d simply noted correctly that that is the difference with Sony. So i don't know why you keep defending them. Why would anyone care they COULD do it if they wanted to, the point is that Fuji is the one who is doing it now.

Sure there is ZEISS glass for Sony which is awesome, but Fuji actually IS doing it all on their own. To most the Touit lenses for X mount aren't even interesting either because Fuji's own offerings are more interesting with equal or better performance ànd more economic as well. Surely Fuji may have an advantage to their own equipment, nobody's saying there are angels at work, it's just the end result that matters.

The X system is smaller than current digital SLR cameras, but is the same size as older SLRs, which weren't often used with zooms. Solid, compact primes were typical. This lens is both longer and heavier than it needs to be.

I have no problem with grip less cameras. In fact, I prefer them to gripped cameras, but when one-handing a camera, a grip is sturdier with a heavy lens.

OK lets go step by step to be sure you got the point.Your comment is the second the most nonsense comment i have ever seen (ur next comment will the the most:) )...Because;I said it is too big You said you own x system camera :D wow grats!!I wish you said "no its size well balanced with fuji x system".Not to own a camera doesnt meant you can't make comment. And since i have something to compare with it (I have Nikon d7000 and Tokina 12 24 on it and it s really well balanced..And while Fuji 10 24 lens has almost the same size with Tokina 12 24)Yes I have right to say "hey it s pretty but too big ".This is my opinion and you cant change it...I also think that if it was 10 or 12mm prime ultra wide angle lens with smaller size Fuji would be really more attractive to me.